Chris Knortz 11/15/2022
Title: Uranium: Is It a Country?
Director: S. Auth, I. Hubert, K. Schnatz
1. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
There has developed an intense debate as to whether nuclear energy is actually less environmentally damaging than comparable fossil fuel technologies. The film takes a look at some of the issues surrounding the mining, production and transportation of nuclear fuel. As with other industries that are involved in large scale industrial processes, companies involved work to divert attention away from the volatile issues. For many in the public the true cost for such energy is out of mind and out of sight.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained?
The film follows the life of nuclear fuel, uranium, from the mine to its use in a reactor to generate electricity. Much of the world’s uranium is mined in Australia. There are several key examples of the distruction and damage caused by nuclear energy. The film takes the view on the path of the fuel beginning in the Australian outback, around the world, then finally to its destination in a power plant, showing the harms caused along the way.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Throughout the film there are sections where people from cities around the world are interviewed. These are quick looks at the public’s knowledge and emotional reactions to issues surrounding the nuclear industry. For many the words involved in describing the industry were familiar. However there was no actual understanding of the process. The industry has worked extensively to keep many of the dangers and risk out of the public light and it has worked. During the mining process a great deal of radioactive waste is created with no permanent solution for storage. The public interviewed only knew of the risks associated with the actual fuel, which is a relatively small quantity when looking at the total waste produced. People are un-able to demand changes when they lack true understanding in regards to the true risks.
This type of decision making is allowed by many of the policies emplaced by governments around the world. The public focus is safety from a reactor meltdown and policy is sticky enforced regulating such issues. However there are many other areas of risk that are less dramatic in nature but can be just as catastrophic in long term damage. During part of the film, one of the narrators was taking readings from a Geiger counter outside a French nuclear power plant. There were readings higher than the allowable limits near the plant. Even though this is an expected result, there is little regulation and understanding of the long term effects of such radiation to the people in the surrounding areas.
Another problem that was vividly shown in the film was the changes being made to the Australian deserts in search of uranium. Australia is the world’s largest producer of uranium and is looking to increase its production to meet future world demand. To accomplish these goals new mines are being constructed. Production of a small amount of reactor fuel involves the processing of many tons of non-usable radioactive material. Much of this material is allowed to blow in the wind because of ineffective containment procedures. Also the vast amounts of water that are required during the refining process are beginning to change the aquifer system in the area forcing hardship on the local people.
The public was shown French nuclear plant, gamma radiation higher than normal.
The ignorance people in Australia had to uranium
Miniming companies taking advantage of the local people .
Economic, Australia is looking to increase it production 1.3 billion forecast for 2011. Some call to keep it in the ground, other are looking to increase the mines.
Mining industry, spills, leaks, coverups, poor responsibility. Politician, people, and companies short term when compared to the threat of uranium exposure.
Water from great artisian basin, no water no mine.
Spring are drying up in Australia because of the Olympic dam minde, 32 million liters a day.
Tailing, radioactive mud left behind at mine. Coveing ponds and mines with tailings are covered, called best practice. But his materials can be blown away easily.
At Olympic dam mine, tailing pond leacks have occurred contaminating ground water. 1000 times tailing for mass of fuel.
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling?
The invervies of civilians regarding the nuclear industry provided an interesting look at the public’s knowledge and reactions. For many there was a lack of understanding of the true process and then potential risks. There were some who were well informed and understood the problems. One such man make the statement “ya, it’s very cheap…at the moment”. This quote was able simplify the entire decision making process around the industry at the present. The realitive cost of the power generated in has been brought to competitively low levels with regulation that spreads the cost to other peoples, areas and even time. In the case of the mining of the material, the people who benefit from the energy in Europe never feel the effects of lower aquifers and radioactive dust. Nuclear material remains dangerous for many thousands of years, therefore it cannot be assessed with traditional methods. It then becomes almost impossible to assess the true cost to future generations.
Even when it is understood that future peoples will be burdened by these remnants, the true scale of the burden may never be now by present generations.
Fear of global warming has been used by many in the industry to argue for the increased used of nuclear power becsue of the lack of carbon emmissions during power production.
German nuclear comettie, nuclear can not solve climate change.
The aboriginal man, bush onion, Yalka, pollution of the land for the long term, bother carbon and uranium mining. Even if there was a disaster, the company would go under, others would pay the long term consequences.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Even with the array of problems stacked against nuclear energy it remains one of the better energy sources for the next few decades. The problems that face the traditional energy system, coal and oil, have been shown to be more destructive to both the environment and society surrounding such industries. As of now there are very few options that can be developed immediately to supply the world economy with save and clean power. Options for completely clean power are non existant. The hope of a future economy base entirely on wind and solar still need decades of development before being realized. Nuclear energy many be one of the only options to bridge the gap between traditional fossil fuels and future clean energies.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
When watching the people being interviewed, it became clear how little the public actually knows about this industry. The education of the film would be most valuable to the general public. People need information about the industry to make an educated decision about their views on the topic. A person cannot make that decision when the only information they ever hear is publicity from the industry or speeches from politicians looking to support the industry.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film showed only a short section on the long term containment of the spent fuel. This will be the long lasting legacy of the industry. Also this is something that is currently being stored at nuclear plants all across the world. Currently there are no viable plans for the disposal of such waste. This problem is allowed to be minimzed because it does not sound a dangerous as a disaster in the reactor. Further look into the dangerous legacy and the lack of any comprehensive plan for its disposal would have shed further light of the problems in the industry.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film looked that the changes being made to the Australian landscape because of the uranium mines. During this section there was the suggestion of action to resist such development. Many of the people were able to work for the mines however their quality of living decreased when the mines came to the area. Similar trends can be seen any place people try to take advantage of the land’s natural’s resources.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The first article I found was from Nature.com, it discussed the actual carbon offset of a nuclear plant. In recent years the industry has gained a reputation as the only truly green energy source that can meet demand of the modern world. However there are still large carbon emissions from a nuclear plant. Much of this results from the mining, refining and transporting of the fuel. Also the construction and decommission of the plant, both of which take large amounts of energy because of the complexity and radioactive contamination of the components. The article shows that this tecknology is not the clean green machine people would like to believe.
The next topic I was interested in looking into was the sale of uranium from Australia to India. I had know that India was looking to increase its nuclear energy production however they were having difficulty producing enough uranium. The article I found talked about the change in policy in Australia to support the sale of uranium ot India. This was a large change for Australia, in the past there were policies that prohibited the sale of nuclear material to countries that had not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which India has not signed. In this case the politicans of Australis saw the economic potential in selling uranium to India and not the potential for other social problems caused by further nuclear wepons. Even if India has shown the uranium will only be used in civilian reactors, this moves still gives support to government and decision making process that does not stand strongly behind Nonproliferation.
Title: Uranium: Is It a Country?
Director: S. Auth, I. Hubert, K. Schnatz
1. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
There has developed an intense debate as to whether nuclear energy is actually less environmentally damaging than comparable fossil fuel technologies. The film takes a look at some of the issues surrounding the mining, production and transportation of nuclear fuel. As with other industries that are involved in large scale industrial processes, companies involved work to divert attention away from the volatile issues. For many in the public the true cost for such energy is out of mind and out of sight.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained?
The film follows the life of nuclear fuel, uranium, from the mine to its use in a reactor to generate electricity. Much of the world’s uranium is mined in Australia. There are several key examples of the distruction and damage caused by nuclear energy. The film takes the view on the path of the fuel beginning in the Australian outback, around the world, then finally to its destination in a power plant, showing the harms caused along the way.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Throughout the film there are sections where people from cities around the world are interviewed. These are quick looks at the public’s knowledge and emotional reactions to issues surrounding the nuclear industry. For many the words involved in describing the industry were familiar. However there was no actual understanding of the process. The industry has worked extensively to keep many of the dangers and risk out of the public light and it has worked. During the mining process a great deal of radioactive waste is created with no permanent solution for storage. The public interviewed only knew of the risks associated with the actual fuel, which is a relatively small quantity when looking at the total waste produced. People are un-able to demand changes when they lack true understanding in regards to the true risks.
This type of decision making is allowed by many of the policies emplaced by governments around the world. The public focus is safety from a reactor meltdown and policy is sticky enforced regulating such issues. However there are many other areas of risk that are less dramatic in nature but can be just as catastrophic in long term damage. During part of the film, one of the narrators was taking readings from a Geiger counter outside a French nuclear power plant. There were readings higher than the allowable limits near the plant. Even though this is an expected result, there is little regulation and understanding of the long term effects of such radiation to the people in the surrounding areas.
Another problem that was vividly shown in the film was the changes being made to the Australian deserts in search of uranium. Australia is the world’s largest producer of uranium and is looking to increase its production to meet future world demand. To accomplish these goals new mines are being constructed. Production of a small amount of reactor fuel involves the processing of many tons of non-usable radioactive material. Much of this material is allowed to blow in the wind because of ineffective containment procedures. Also the vast amounts of water that are required during the refining process are beginning to change the aquifer system in the area forcing hardship on the local people.
The public was shown French nuclear plant, gamma radiation higher than normal.
The ignorance people in Australia had to uranium
Miniming companies taking advantage of the local people .
Economic, Australia is looking to increase it production 1.3 billion forecast for 2011. Some call to keep it in the ground, other are looking to increase the mines.
Mining industry, spills, leaks, coverups, poor responsibility. Politician, people, and companies short term when compared to the threat of uranium exposure.
Water from great artisian basin, no water no mine.
Spring are drying up in Australia because of the Olympic dam minde, 32 million liters a day.
Tailing, radioactive mud left behind at mine. Coveing ponds and mines with tailings are covered, called best practice. But his materials can be blown away easily.
At Olympic dam mine, tailing pond leacks have occurred contaminating ground water. 1000 times tailing for mass of fuel.
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling?
The invervies of civilians regarding the nuclear industry provided an interesting look at the public’s knowledge and reactions. For many there was a lack of understanding of the true process and then potential risks. There were some who were well informed and understood the problems. One such man make the statement “ya, it’s very cheap…at the moment”. This quote was able simplify the entire decision making process around the industry at the present. The realitive cost of the power generated in has been brought to competitively low levels with regulation that spreads the cost to other peoples, areas and even time. In the case of the mining of the material, the people who benefit from the energy in Europe never feel the effects of lower aquifers and radioactive dust. Nuclear material remains dangerous for many thousands of years, therefore it cannot be assessed with traditional methods. It then becomes almost impossible to assess the true cost to future generations.
Even when it is understood that future peoples will be burdened by these remnants, the true scale of the burden may never be now by present generations.
Fear of global warming has been used by many in the industry to argue for the increased used of nuclear power becsue of the lack of carbon emmissions during power production.
German nuclear comettie, nuclear can not solve climate change.
The aboriginal man, bush onion, Yalka, pollution of the land for the long term, bother carbon and uranium mining. Even if there was a disaster, the company would go under, others would pay the long term consequences.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Even with the array of problems stacked against nuclear energy it remains one of the better energy sources for the next few decades. The problems that face the traditional energy system, coal and oil, have been shown to be more destructive to both the environment and society surrounding such industries. As of now there are very few options that can be developed immediately to supply the world economy with save and clean power. Options for completely clean power are non existant. The hope of a future economy base entirely on wind and solar still need decades of development before being realized. Nuclear energy many be one of the only options to bridge the gap between traditional fossil fuels and future clean energies.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
When watching the people being interviewed, it became clear how little the public actually knows about this industry. The education of the film would be most valuable to the general public. People need information about the industry to make an educated decision about their views on the topic. A person cannot make that decision when the only information they ever hear is publicity from the industry or speeches from politicians looking to support the industry.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film showed only a short section on the long term containment of the spent fuel. This will be the long lasting legacy of the industry. Also this is something that is currently being stored at nuclear plants all across the world. Currently there are no viable plans for the disposal of such waste. This problem is allowed to be minimzed because it does not sound a dangerous as a disaster in the reactor. Further look into the dangerous legacy and the lack of any comprehensive plan for its disposal would have shed further light of the problems in the industry.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film looked that the changes being made to the Australian landscape because of the uranium mines. During this section there was the suggestion of action to resist such development. Many of the people were able to work for the mines however their quality of living decreased when the mines came to the area. Similar trends can be seen any place people try to take advantage of the land’s natural’s resources.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The first article I found was from Nature.com, it discussed the actual carbon offset of a nuclear plant. In recent years the industry has gained a reputation as the only truly green energy source that can meet demand of the modern world. However there are still large carbon emissions from a nuclear plant. Much of this results from the mining, refining and transporting of the fuel. Also the construction and decommission of the plant, both of which take large amounts of energy because of the complexity and radioactive contamination of the components. The article shows that this tecknology is not the clean green machine people would like to believe.
The next topic I was interested in looking into was the sale of uranium from Australia to India. I had know that India was looking to increase its nuclear energy production however they were having difficulty producing enough uranium. The article I found talked about the change in policy in Australia to support the sale of uranium ot India. This was a large change for Australia, in the past there were policies that prohibited the sale of nuclear material to countries that had not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which India has not signed. In this case the politicans of Australis saw the economic potential in selling uranium to India and not the potential for other social problems caused by further nuclear wepons. Even if India has shown the uranium will only be used in civilian reactors, this moves still gives support to government and decision making process that does not stand strongly behind Nonproliferation.
Kleiner, Kurt. “Nuclear Energy: Assessing the Emissions” Nature.com, 2008 http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99.html
Taylor. “Nuclear India to get Australian Uranium” Aljezerra.com, 2011. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/2011125115448183516.html